Review
Abstract
Background: Telemedicine involves medical, diagnostic, and treatment-related services using telecommunication technology. Not only does telemedicine contribute to improved patient quality of life and satisfaction by reducing travel time and allowing patients to be seen in their usual environment, but it also has the potential to improve disease management by making it easier for patients to see a doctor. Recently, owing to IT developments, research on telemedicine has been increasing; however, its usefulness and limitations in randomized controlled trials remain unclear because of the multifaceted effects of telemedicine. Furthermore, the specific metrics that can be used as cross-disciplinary indicators when comparing telemedicine and face-to-face care also remain undefined.
Objective: This review aimed to provide an overview of the general and cross-disciplinarity metrics used to compare telemedicine with in-person care in randomized controlled trials. In addition, we identified previously unevaluated indicators and suggested those that should be prioritized in future clinical trials.
Methods: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for publications that met the inclusion criteria according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews). Original, English-language articles on randomized controlled trials comparing some forms of telemedicine with face-to-face care from January 2019 to March 2024 were included, and the basic information and general metrics used in these studies were summarized.
Results: Of the 2275 articles initially identified, 79 were included in the final analysis. The commonly used metrics that can be used across medical specialties were divided into the following 3 categories: (1) patient-centeredness (67/79, 85%), including patient satisfaction, workload, and quality of life; (2) patient outcomes (57/79, 72%), including general clinical parameters such as death, admission, and adverse events; and (3) cost-effectiveness (40/79, 51%), including cost assessment and quality-adjusted life year. Notably, only 25 (32%) of 79 studies evaluated all the 3 categories. Other metrics, such as staff convenience, system usability, and environmental impact, were extracted as indicators in different directions from the three categories above, although few previous reports have evaluated them (staff convenience: 8/79, 10%; system usability: 3/79, 4%; and environmental impact: 2/79, 3%).
Conclusions: A significant variation was observed in the metrics used across previous studies. Notably, general indicators should be used to enhance the understandability of the results for people in other areas, even if disease-specific indicators are used. In addition, indicators should be established to include all three commonly used categories of measures to ensure a comprehensive evaluation: patient-centeredness, patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Staff convenience, system usability, and environmental impact are important indicators that should be used in future trials. Moreover, standardization of the evaluation metrics is desired for future clinical trials and studies.
Trial Registration: Open Science Forum Registries YH5S7; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YH5S7
doi:10.2196/67929
Keywords
Introduction
Background
Telemedicine involves any type of medical, diagnostic, or treatment-related service using telecommunication technology []. In Japan, the term “online medical care,” defined more specifically by the government, is used instead of telemedicine, which refers to the act of examining and diagnosing a patient, communicating the results of the diagnosis, and prescribing medical treatment in real time involving a doctor and a patient through telecommunication technology []. Recent developments in telecommunications technology have been remarkable. The telemedicine environment is changing with the spread of smartphones, improvements in data transmission speeds, and the development of wearable devices. Furthermore, although the use of telemedicine had been attempted earlier, it was adopted widely during the COVID-19 pandemic because of social distancing []. These findings indicate that the telemedicine content and environment have changed over the past few years.
The reports on the implementation of telemedicine in various medical fields are limited. Compared with standard face-to-face medical care, telemedicine reduces the risk of infection by minimizing physical contact and offers advantages to patients, such as shorter visit times, including waiting and travel times, which can improve patient satisfaction rates []. Ease of access to medical care provided by telemedicine may also improve disease management and clinical outcomes []. Telemedicine can be effective in many aspects of health care [,]. Therefore, the metrics that should be used to evaluate telemedicine should be carefully considered.
For evaluating disease management, using disease-specific indicators, such as hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) for diabetes, is necessary to determine the usefulness of telemedicine. Additionally, general indicators, including non–disease-specific indicators, are required to compare results among studies on different diseases. Telemedicine can also influence patient satisfaction and quality of life (QoL). Furthermore, the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was recently proposed for the evaluation of “patient-centeredness,” the concept in which medical care is provided “for the benefit of the patient” [].
Telemedicine affects various aspects of medical care; thus, it requires multiple measures rather than a single measure for efficacy evaluations. It is possible that indicators that have not been widely used in the past should be used in the future. A variety of metrics have been used across previous studies, and reports summarizing the general metrics used for evaluating telemedicine remain lacking.
Telemedicine does not oppose face-to-face care but rather complements it, similar to the relationship between outpatient, inpatient, and home care. However, when examining the usefulness of telemedicine, it is commonly compared with face-to-face care, which is the well-established, long-standing method of medical care. Further research into telemedicine, particularly randomized controlled trials (RCTs), is essential to generate solid evidence. To identify the metrics that should be used in future RCTs, it is essential to first understand the actual use of general metrics in past RCTs.
Objectives
In this study, we conducted a scoping review of articles comparing telemedicine with in-person care in RCTs and summarized the metrics used to understand their usefulness. This study also aimed to identify indicators that were not thoroughly evaluated in previous clinical trials but will be useful in the future and suggest which indicators should be prioritized in future clinical trials.
Methods
Literature Search
This systematic literature review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Review) guidelines []. The completed PRISMA checklist is presented in . MEDLINE and Embase databases were systematically searched on March 15, 2024, for peer-reviewed full papers published between January 1, 2019, and March 14, 2024. We searched only the MEDLINE and Embase databases because we assumed that most of the articles of interest (metrics used in RCTs) would be included in them. Owing to the significant advancements in telemedicine in recent years, older publications were deemed outdated, and the search was limited to the most recent publications from the past 5 years since 2019. The search string used for the search in MEDLINE contained the following terms related to telemedicine: (telemedicine OR “online medical care” OR teleconsultation OR “online consultation” OR “telemedical consultation”) AND (“randomized controlled trial”) AND (outcome OR effectiveness) AND (control OR conventional OR face-to-face). lists the search terms used in the MEDLINE and Embase databases.
The review was registered with Open Science Forum Registries (YH5S7).
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies published between January 1, 2019, and March 14, 2024; (2) RCTs comparing some form of telemedicine with a standard of care (face-to-face care); (3) studies involving telemedicine, including online monitoring (ie, information measured using the device is automatically sent to the medical facility) or synchronous communication through telephone or video; and (4) studies involving both disease-specific metrics (eg, HbA1c for diabetes) and general (ie, non–disease-specific) cross-disciplinary metrics.
The following studies were excluded: (1) protocols and proposals; (2) systematic reviews, commentaries, and scoping reviews; and (3) gray literature.
Study Selection
Two investigators (YS and YH) independently screened the titles and abstracts of the identified studies using the Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation). Subsequently, the investigators (YS and YH) independently reviewed the full text of the selected studies based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements regarding the classification of a reference were resolved by a third reviewer (MI) by conducting an additional review and confirming the final classification.
Data Collection and Summary
Data regarding study details were extracted using the Covidence software (Veritas Health Innovation) and Microsoft Excel. One reviewer (YS) extracted the additional data from eligible studies, including the content of telemedicine and the disease-specific and general (ie, non–disease-specific) indicators for evaluating telemedicine. All extracted data were cross-checked for accuracy by a second reviewer (YH), and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion. The extracted data elements included the study title, year of publication, country, target disease or population, total sample size, type of telemedicine used, and disease-specific and general metrics used for evaluating telemedicine. A meta-analysis was deemed inappropriate because of heterogeneity in the study design, populations, and outcome measures for quantitative studies, and a narrative synthesis of quantitative study results was conducted. The evaluation metrics were categorized through the following process. Initially, all unique metrics identified by a single author (YS) were reviewed and confirmed by two additional authors (YH and MI). Following this, the 3 authors engaged in collaborative discussions to group the metrics into primary and subcategories based on shared directional perspectives.
This study examined the actual use of metrics for evaluating telemedicine and did not focus on the results or conclusions (superiority or noninferiority of telemedicine compared with face-to-face care) of the included studies.
Results
Literature Search
Initially, 2275 studies were considered relevant according to the inclusion criteria. However, 606 duplicate studies or those marked as ineligible by automation tools were removed before screening. Furthermore, 1507 studies were excluded after screening the titles and abstracts, and 83 studies were excluded after reading the articles in greater depth during the assessment of extracted data. Finally, 79 studies were included in the analysis. The PRISMA flow diagram summarizing the article selection process is presented in 
Figure 1. A list of all 79 studies and their information is provided in [,-].
Study Description
Table 1 presents the characteristics of the 79 included studies. After 2020, a total of 10‐20 papers comparing telemedicine and face-to-face care in RCTs were consistently published annually. These studies were conducted and published commonly in the United States (11/79, 14%), Australia (10/79, 13%), and European countries (France: 6/79, 8%; Norway: 6/79, 8%; and: Spain 6/79, 8%), with China (5/79, 6%) and Japan (5/79, 6%) being the most common in Asia.
The most common departments in which the studies were conducted were internal medicine (39/79, 49%), psychiatry (11/79, 14%), and rehabilitation (9/79, 11%). Most dealt with outpatient care (76/79, 96%); however, a few reports dealt with telemedicine from home as an alternative to inpatient care (3/79, 4%). The specific contents were as follows: early discharge from the hospital with telemedicine versus discharge on a regular schedule (study number 57 []), home care under telemonitoring versus long-term hospitalization (study number 71 []), and initiation of treatment at home versus in the hospital (study number 74 []).
Regarding the targeted diseases and populations, the most common was postoperative follow-up (11/79, 14%), followed by chronic diseases, such as coronary artery disease (7/79, 9%), diabetes (6/79, 8%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4/79, 5%). The median total sample size was 106 (IQR 59‐240), with 10 and 2185 being the minimum and maximum numbers, respectively.
When examining the details of telemedicine, online medical care was the most common (69/79, 87%; Table 1), including telepsychiatry involving cognitive behavior therapy. Furthermore, online monitoring and telerehabilitation were also common practices. In several studies, telemedicine included apps for patient education and the ability to make emergency calls. Online monitoring (information measured by the device automatically sent to the medical facility) or synchronous communication through telephone or video was considered telemedicine in this review.
| Characteristics | Value, n (%) | |
| Publication year | ||
| 2019 | 9 (11) | |
| 2020 | 15 (19) | |
| 2021 | 18 (23) | |
| 2022 | 18 (23) | |
| 2023 | 12 (15) | |
| 2024 (From January to March) | 7 (9) | |
| Publication countrya | ||
| United States | 11 (14) | |
| Australia | 10 (13) | |
| France | 6 (8) | |
| Norway | 6 (8) | |
| Spain | 6 (8) | |
| China | 5 (6) | |
| Germany | 5 (6) | |
| Japan | 5 (6) | |
| The Netherlands | 5 (6) | |
| United Kingdom | 3 (4) | |
| Departmenta | ||
| Internal medicine | 39 (49) | |
| Psychiatry | 11 (14) | |
| Rehabilitation | 9 (11) | |
| Surgery | 5 (6) | |
| Orthopedics | 4 (5) | |
| Pediatrics | 3 (4) | |
| Anesthesiology | 2 (3) | |
| Gynecology | 2 (3) | |
| Urology | 2 (3) | |
| Setting | ||
| Outpatient care | 76 (96) | |
| Inpatient care | 3 (4) | |
| Target disease or populationa | ||
| Postoperative | 11 (14) | |
| Coronary disease | 7 (9) | |
| Diabetes mellitus | 6 (8) | |
| Sleep apnea | 5 (6) | |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | 4 (5) | |
| Mental disorders | 4 (5) | |
| Rheumatoid arthritis | 3 (4) | |
| Brain tumor | 2 (3) | |
| Chronic conditions | 2 (3) | |
| Chronic pain | 2 (3) | |
| Heart failure | 2 (3) | |
| Inflammatory bowel disease | 2 (3) | |
| Insomnia | 2 (3) | |
| Orthopedic consultation | 2 (3) | |
| Patients with pacemakers | 2 (3) | |
| Parkinson disease | 2 (3) | |
| Primary care for children | 2 (3) | |
| Detailed contents of telemedicine | ||
| Online medical careb | 69 (87) | |
| Telepsychiatry including cognitive-behavior therapy | 10 (13) | |
| Online monitoring | 17 (22) | |
| Telerehabilitation | 11 (14) | |
aTwo or more reports.
bAccording to the following definition by the Japanese government: the act of examining and diagnosing a patient, communicating the results of the diagnosis, and prescribing medical treatment in real time involving a doctor and a patient through telecommunication technology
General Metrics for Evaluating Telemedicine
We identified 25 unique metrics that can be generally used (patient satisfaction, patient workload, patient time spent in medical visits, absence from work, travel distance, waiting time, QoL, patient choice of subsequent type of care, death, admission, hospital days, emergency department visits, frequency of visits or contacts, duration of visits or contacts, treatment adherence, change in diagnosis or treatment, adverse effects or safety, cost, quality-adjusted life years [QALY], staff satisfaction, staff work, staff time spent per patient, system usability, environmental impact, and feasibility for future clinical trials). A median of 4 (IQR 3-5, with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 10) metrics were used per study. We classified commonly used metrics into three categories: (1) patient-centeredness (67/79, 85%), (2) patient outcomes (57/79, 72%), and (3) cost-effectiveness (40/79, 51%) (Table 2). Notably, 32% (25/79) evaluated all these categories.
We further subdivided the metrics into nine subcategories and examined the numbers and combinations of uses per article. Patient centeredness was divided into three categories: (1) patient satisfaction, (2) patient work, and (3) QoL. Patient outcomes were classified as (4) general clinical parameters. Cost-effectiveness was divided into two categories: (5) costs, and (6) QALY. Other metrics were categorized into three categories: (7) staff satisfaction, (8) staff work, and (9) feasibility for future clinical trial. Most studies (69/79, 87%) used two or more general metrics (ie, non–disease-specific metrics), and the median number of the nine subcategories used in each study was 3 (IQR 2-4, with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 6) metrics. The most frequently used combinations in the nine subcategories were as follows: general clinical parameters and patient satisfaction (7/79, 9%); general clinical parameters (5/79, 6%); QoL and patient satisfaction (5/79, 6%); QoL and general clinical parameters (5/79, 6%); costs, QoL, and general clinical parameters (5/79, 6%); and costs, QALY, and QoL (5/79, 6%)
| Metric | Value, n (%) |
| Patient-centeredness | 67 (85) |
| Patient outcomes | 57 (72) |
| Cost-effectiveness | 40 (51) |
| Other | 40 (51) |
The evaluation metrics by department are summarized in Table 3. With regard to internal medicine, psychiatry, and rehabilitation, for which a relatively large number of articles were included in this review, the utilization rate of patient outcomes was high in internal medicine (33/39, 85%) but was rather low in psychiatry (5/11, 45%) and rehabilitation (5/9, 56%). In contrast, the utilization rate of patient-centeredness was very high in psychiatry (10/11, 91%) and rehabilitation (8/9, 89%) compared with that in internal medicine (31/39, 79%).
| Department. | Patient-centeredness, n (%) | Patient outcomes, n (%) | Cost-effectiveness, n (%) |
| Internal medicine (n=39) | 31 (79) | 33 (85) | 21 (54) |
| Psychiatry (n=11) | 10 (91) | 5 (45) | 7 (64) |
| Rehabilitation (n=9) | 8 (89) | 5 (56) | 3 (33) |
| Surgery (n=5) | 5 (100) | 5 (100) | 2 (40) |
| Orthopedics (n=4) | 4 (100) | 2 (50) | 3 (75) |
| Pediatrics (n=3) | 2 (67) | 1 (33) | 2 (67) |
| Anesthesiology (n=2) | 2 (100) | 1 (50) | 1 (50) |
| Gynecology (n=2) | 1 (50) | 1 (50) | 0 (0) |
| Urology (n=2) | 2 (100) | 2 (100) | 1 (50) |
Patient-Centeredness
Patient satisfaction, work associated with medical visits, and QoL were considered metrics relevant to patient-centeredness, and these metrics were evaluated in most studies (67/79, 85%). The metrics used for evaluating patient-centeredness are summarized in Table 4.
| Metric | Value, n (%) |
| Patient satisfaction | 41 (61) |
| Patient workload | 17 (25) |
| Time spent in visit or contact | 9 (13) |
| Absence from work | 7 (10) |
| Travel distance | 7 (10) |
| Waiting time | 3 (4) |
| Quality of life | 45 (67) |
More than half (41/67, 61%) of the studies evaluated patient satisfaction. Table 5 presents the questionnaires used to evaluate patient satisfaction. Approximately half of the studies that addressed patient satisfaction used their own set of questions, whereas the other half used previously developed questionnaires, such as the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire [], Telemedicine Satisfaction Questionnaire [], and Outpatient Experiences Questionnaire []. In addition, 2 other studies evaluated patient experience (study numbers 48 [] and 68 [] in ), which refers to the patient’s specific “experience” of health care services. This concept is an evolution of patient satisfaction and is internationally recognized as an important quality indicator in health care []. Only one study evaluated “PROs.”
| Questionnaires | Value, n (%) | ||
| Patient satisfaction (n=41) | |||
| Questions developed for the study | 19 (46) | ||
| Client Satisfaction Questionnaire [] | 3 (7) | ||
| Telemedicine Satisfaction Questionnaire [] | 3 (7) | ||
| Outpatient Experiences Questionnaire [] | 2 (5) | ||
| Satisfad10 Questionnaire [] | 2 (5) | ||
| Other questionnaires from previous studies | 12 (29) | ||
| Quality-of-life (n=45) | |||
| EQ-5D-3L/5L [,] | 26 (58) | ||
| SF-36a [] | 9 (20) | ||
| SF-12b [] | 4 (9) | ||
| Others | 10 (22) | ||
aSF-36: Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Short Form 36-Item Health Survey.
bSF-12: MOS Short Form 12-Item Health Survey.
Some studies (17/67, 25%) focused on work or burden associated with medical visits, including factors such as the time spent or travel distance for medical visits or contacts. Other related indicators, such as absence from work and waiting time, were also investigated in a few studies.
More than half of the studies evaluated QoL (45/67, 67%). Table 5 summarizes the metrics used to measure QoL. The most frequently used measure was the EQ-5D-3L/5L [,], which was used by more than half of the studies that evaluated QoL. The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) [] and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 12-Item Health Survey (SF-12) [] were also frequently used. In addition to these general QoL measures, some studies also used disease-specific QoL measures.
Patient Outcomes
When comparing telemedicine and face-to-face care in RCTs, various clinical metrics for patient outcomes, including disease-specific ones, are used to assess their superiority or noninferiority. Table 6 summarizes general metrics that appear to be applicable for evaluating various disease populations. The most commonly used general clinical parameters were admission (26/57, 46%), adherence (23/57, 40%), adverse events or safety (21/57, 37%), and frequency of visits or contacts (17/57, 30%).
| Metrics | Value, n (%) |
| Death | 10 (18) |
| Admission | 26 (46) |
| Hospital days | 8 (14) |
| Emergency department visits | 10 (18) |
| Frequency of visits or contacts | 17 (30) |
| Duration of visit or contact | 8 (14) |
| Treatment adherence | 23 (40) |
| Change in diagnosis or treatment | 4 (7) |
| Adverse events or safety | 21 (37) |
Cost-Effectiveness
The following ranges of costs were considered when evaluating cost-effectiveness: medical costs (fees for consultation, examination, medication, injection, surgery, and hospitalization), nonmedical costs (costs indirectly incurred by medical interventions, such as transportation, welfare equipment, or home improvements), and indirect costs (loss due to injury, illness, or death). The method of calculating medical costs and the range of costs included in the calculations differed across studies, partly because of differences in the reimbursement systems of the countries in which the studies were conducted and differences in perspectives (patient, insurer, or society). QALY was evaluated in 28% (11/40) of the studies that evaluated cost-effectiveness.
Staff Convenience
Staff convenience including staff satisfaction, staff workload, and time spent per patient was evaluated in a few studies (8/79, 10%). Staff satisfaction was not frequently evaluated (4/79, 5%) compared with patient satisfaction (41/79, 52%). Similarly, fewer studies examined staff workload (5/79, 6%) than patient workload (17/79, 22%). Notably, the time spent per patient was evaluated to assess the staff work in the studies.
System Usability
A small number of studies (study numbers 8 [], 14 [], and 49 [] in ) have evaluated the user-friendliness of telemedicine systems using items such as usability questionnaires or the number of technical challenges encountered.
Others
Other metrics that were not included in either of the aforementioned categories were greenhouse gas impacts (study numbers 6 [] and 18 [] in ), mental health of caregivers (study number 12 []), health literacy (study number 79 []), and self-efficacy (study number 17 []). Details of each are provided in .
Discussion
Principal Findings
In this study, we conducted a scoping review of RCTs comparing telemedicine with face-to-face care published in the last 5 years and summarized the cross-disciplinary measures used in these studies. Notably, several studies used multiple measures, and metrics related to patient-centeredness, patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness were commonly used. However, the measures used and their combinations varied across studies, and only a few studies evaluated staff satisfaction, system usability, and environmental impacts. These results highlight the requirement to standardize evaluation indicators for comparing telemedicine with face-to-face care. Although establishing evaluation measures for telemedicine is challenging owing to its multifaceted impact, the evaluation indicators can be classified into three main categories: (1) patient-centeredness, (2) patient outcomes, and (3) cost-effectiveness.
We believe that in addition to using disease-specific indicators, these three categories of general metrics should be used in telemedicine evaluations. From the papers analyzed in this study (), some pertinent examples from the identified studies are as follows: Gayot et al [] evaluated QoL for patient-centeredness, unplanned hospitalization and death for patient outcomes, and direct costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cost-effectiveness in addition to disease-specific metrics, and Mínguez Clemente et al [] evaluated patient satisfaction for patient-centeredness; admission, hospital days, frequency of visits, and adherence for patient outcomes; and cost per patient for cost-effectiveness while using other parameters (study numbers 16 [] and 73 [] in , respectively). Our results suggest that within a single study, at least three indicators, each belonging to a different category, should be simultaneously evaluated to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the impact of telemedicine. However, given that different diseases have different management approaches, our results indicate that the choice of metrics differs by clinical specialty (Table 3). Therefore, they need to be considered more deeply and individually in special circumstances. In particular, studies of replacing inpatient care with telemedicine were not well represented in this review and may require separate consideration.
In this study, we summarized the evaluation metrics commonly used in previous reports, identified 3 categories that should be covered, and described other 3 indicators that should be evaluated in the future. However, it did not provide a more rigorous standardization of which indicators should be used for each of the three categories. We believe that this should be discussed among the expert panel and finally decided using approaches such as the Delphi method [].
Patient-Centeredness
Patient-centeredness is a concept closely related to PROs []. Although measures of patient prognosis are relatively objective, PROs are subjective to the patient, with no intervention from a physician or measurement using instruments. However, considering such subjective evaluations as evidence is debatable []. Patient-centeredness is a crucial concept based on the premise that medical care is performed “for the patient,” while also emphasizing the need for standardization and clear validation. In this review, we adopted a broad perspective of patient-centeredness, considering not only studies using the term “PROs” but also the following terms as relevant: patient satisfaction, patient work associated with medical visits, and QoL.
Patient satisfaction, experience, and PROs were the main indicators used to assess patient-centeredness. Patient satisfaction is an abstract concept of “satisfaction” that also depends on individual expectations, making the standardization of measurement scales challenging and complicating the identification of specific issues from the results [,]. Although several questionnaires have been developed to assess patient satisfaction [-], their use varies across studies, and in approximately half of the studies, questions used to evaluate satisfaction were originally designed in those studies. In contrast, patient experience deals with specific “experiences” and is easier to standardize than patient satisfaction, with more convenience in identifying specific issues from the results [,]. PROs are even broader measures that reflect various aspects of patient health, as they are reported directly by the patient without additional interpretation by a health care professional or anyone else []. They may be divided into disease-specific and comprehensive PROs. Patient satisfaction, patient experience, and PROs are interrelated and cannot be studied separately. Assessing patient experience or PROs may be preferable over patient satisfaction to help identify issues.
Among the various QoL scales, EQ-5D-3L/L [,], SF-36 [], and SF-12 [] are used most commonly. Notably, even while using the disease-specific QoL assessment scales, the aforementioned general scales may be used in combination.
Patient Outcomes
The indicators of patient outcomes can be divided into disease-specific and cross-disciplinary outcomes. In this study, disease-specific indicators are listed only in and are not tabulated as they vary across fields. Moreover, even if disease-specific indicators (eg, HbA1c for diabetes) are evaluated, they may be difficult to understand for readers in other fields. Therefore, cross-disciplinary general indicators should be used in addition to disease-specific indicators. The specific parameters that should be used as general indicators depend on the severity and progression pattern of the disease but can include death, hospitalization, emergency visits, and frequency of general outpatient visits.
Cost-Effectiveness
The most common cost-effectiveness evaluation was the calculation and comparison of the costs of telemedicine and usual face-to-face care. From the health care payer’s perspective, only medical costs are important, whereas from the patient’s perspective, only the copayment of medical costs is important. Furthermore, from a societal perspective, all medical, nonmedical, and indirect costs should be included in the analysis [-]. When comparing telemedicine to traditional face-to-face care, a broader spectrum of parameters must be evaluated. These encompass the costs associated with software development and hardware implementation, as well as the potential economic advantages such as reduced transportation expenses and fewer missed workdays, which are not typically considered in comparisons of in-person treatment modalities. Therefore, evaluating not only medical costs but also nonmedical and indirect costs is crucial. However, standardizing the calculation method is difficult because costs may differ depending on the reimbursement system, prices, and social environment in each country.
The QALY is a cost-effectiveness index based on QoL and survival time and is considered a common effectiveness index, even if the target diseases are different []. However, although various factors are associated with evaluating the cost-effectiveness of telemedicine, QALY evaluates only QoL and survival time. Therefore, this should be considered when using QALY.
Other Metrics
In addition to the metrics mentioned earlier, future studies should also consider other metrics for evaluation. The first candidate is the metric for staff convenience. We all know that health care is “for the patient”; as noted earlier, patient-centeredness has been well investigated in many studies. On the other side of the coin, its convenience for health care professionals has not been considered important or thoroughly evaluated. However, it is an undeniable fact that the health care providers (medical professionals) are the counterparts of the health care recipients (patients), and it is easy to imagine that a system that health care providers find inconvenient is unlikely to be widely adopted. Particularly in telemedicine, health care professionals are accustomed to a well-established and easy-to-use form of care, which is face-to-face care. Therefore, evaluating whether telemedicine is easy to use for health care professionals is vital. Such information would aid in assessing how favorable telemedicine is likely to be received by health care providers when implemented in general clinical practice. Careful examination of the reasons why staff members felt telemedicine was inconvenient would also provide insight into how to improve it.
Another important factor is whether the system is easy to use, as the most important component of telemedicine is the digital equipment and internet connection. The degree of digital literacy varies among individuals, and if the system is difficult to use, telemedicine may even worsen access to health care for some people, as symbolized by the term “digital divide.” Although it has not been well evaluated so far, the evaluation metrics of system usability are also considered important for ensuring equitable access to health care.
In addition, a small number of studies evaluated the impact of greenhouse gases and environmental costs. Given the seriousness of global warming, considering a health care delivery system that is sustainable for the entire planet is also important. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol divides carbon emissions into 3 categories: scope 1, direct emissions secondary to energy use; scope 2, indirect emissions secondary to purchased electricity; and scope 3, indirect emissions []. Most emissions related to the health care system reportedly correspond to scope 3, which includes indirect emissions occurring as a consequence of health care activities such as disposables, equipment (medical and nonmedical), and pharmaceuticals, as it includes a wider range of emission sources than other scopes []. Therefore, it may be necessary to consider a wide range of targets to assess the environmental impacts of telemedicine. There is a scoping review on the inclusion of environmental impacts in evaluations of health care economics []. Greenhouse gas emissions, energy use, water use, and physical waste impacts were frequently used in the past, and 10 methods for assessing environmental impacts have been described. However, it remains unknown which metrics should be evaluated and in which units, creating an issue for discussion in the future.
Limitations
Although our scoping review was thorough, it has some limitations. First, we searched only the MEDLINE and Embase databases for peer-reviewed, full-text articles, although we assumed that most of the articles in our scope would be included within them because we focused on the metrics used in RCTs. Second, only papers published in 2019-2024 were included because the content of telemedicine has changed rapidly with technological advancements and the emergence of COVID-19, and it is unclear whether it is appropriate to apply the content of the distant past to current analyses. This limited the scope of the search and emphasized the most recent data. Third, a narrative synthesis is a secondary analysis of data that focuses on the interpretations presented by the authors of original papers and is not based on primary data. Furthermore, our findings represent an interpretation of the data and should be viewed as a heuristic theory.
Conclusions
In studies comparing telemedicine with face-to-face care from 2019 to 2024, the most commonly used metrics were patient-centeredness, patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. These are important indicators of telemedicine and should be evaluated simultaneously in future clinical studies. In addition, our study also indicates that staff satisfaction could be an important evaluation metric for future clinical trials.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by MHLW 23IA2001. We would also like to thank Editage for the English language editing.
Data Availability
All data analyzed during this study are included in the article and its supplementary files.
Authors' Contributions
YS, YH, and MN contributed to study design and conception. YS, YH, RI, MI, and RW conducted the investigation. YS, YH, and MI were involved in writing (original draft). RI, RW, and MN contributed to writing (review and editing). MN handled the funding acquisition and supervision.
Conflicts of Interest
None declared.
Multimedia Appendix 1
PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist.
DOCX File , 85 KBMultimedia Appendix 2
Search terms used for the MEDLINE and Embase databases.
PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 98 KBMultimedia Appendix 3
List of all the 79 papers and their information.
XLSX File (Microsoft Excel File), 128 KBReferences
- Telehealth, telemedicine, and telecare: what's what? Federal Communications Commission. URL: https://www.fcc.gov/general/telehealth-telemedicine-and-telecare-whats-what [accessed 2024-10-01]
- Guidelines for the appropriate implementation of online medical care. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. 2022. URL: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/12601000/000901835.pdf [accessed 2024-10-01]
- OECD. The COVID-19 Pandemic and the future of telemedicine, OECD health policy studies. Paris. OECD Publishing; 2023. URL: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the-covid-19-pandemic-and-the-future-of-telemedicine_ac8b0a27-en.html [accessed 2024-10-01]
- Anawade PA, Sharma D, Gahane S. A comprehensive review on exploring the impact of telemedicine on healthcare accessibility. Cureus. 2024;16(3):e55996. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Satoh M, Tatsumi Y, Nakayama S, Shinohara Y, Kawazoe M, Nozato Y, et al. Self-measurement of blood pressure at home using a cuff device for change in blood pressure levels: systematic review and meta-analysis. Hypertens Res. 2024. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Cardoso LB, Couto P, Correia P, Lopes PC, Fernandes JCH, Fernandes GVO, et al. Impact of digital innovations on health literacy applied to patients with special needs: a systematic review. Information. 2024;15(11):663. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef]
- Kishimoto T, Kinoshita S, Kitazawa M, Hishimoto A, Asami T, Suda A, et al. Live two-way video versus face-to-face treatment for depression, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive disorder: a 24-week randomized controlled trial. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2024;78(4):220-228. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346:f167. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Gayot C, Laubarie-Mouret C, Zarca K, Mimouni M, Cardinaud N, Luce S, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a telemedicine programme for preventing unplanned hospitalisations of older adults living in nursing homes: the GERONTACCESS cluster randomized clinical trial. BMC Geriatr. 2022;22(1):991. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Mínguez Clemente P, Pascual-Carrasco M, Mata Hernández C, Malo de Molina R, Arvelo LA, Cadavid B, et al. Follow-up with telemedicine in early discharge for COPD exacerbations: randomized clinical trial (TELEMEDCOPD-Trial). COPD. 2021;18(1):62-69. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Wang QP, Chang WY, Han MM, Hu YX, Lin SS, Gu YC. Application of telemedicine system for older adults postoperative patients in community: a feasibility study. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1291916. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sim HW, Koh KWL, Poh SC, Chan SP, Marchesseau S, Singh D, et al. Remote intensive management to improve antiplatelet adherence in acute myocardial infarction: a secondary analysis of the randomized controlled IMMACULATE trial. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2024;57(3):408-417. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sten-Gahmberg S, Pedersen K, Harsheim IG, Løyland HI, Snilsberg Ø, Iversen T, et al. Pragmatic randomized controlled trial comparing a complex telemedicine-based intervention with usual care in patients with chronic conditions. Eur J Health Econ. 2024;25(7):1275-1289. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Gordon LG, Jones S, Parker G, Chambers S, Aitken JF, Foote M, et al. Cost-utility analysis of a telehealth psychological support intervention for people with primary brain tumor: telehealth making sense of brain tumor. Psychooncology. 2024;33(1):e6243. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Morau E, Chevallier T, Serrand C, Perin M, Gricourt Y, Cuvillon P. Teleconsultation compared with face-to-face consultation in the context of pre-anesthesia evaluation: TELANESTH, a randomized controlled single-blind non-inferiority study. J Clin Anesth. 2024;92:111318. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Wright AA, Poort H, Tavormina A, Schmiege SJ, Matulonis UA, Campos SM, et al. Pilot randomized trial of an acceptance-based telehealth intervention for women with ovarian cancer and PARP inhibitor-related fatigue. Gynecol Oncol. 2023;177:165-172. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Tümtürk İ, Bakırhan S, Özden F, Gültaç E, Kılınç CY. Effect of telerehabilitation-based exercise and education on pain, function, strength, proprioception, and psychosocial parameters in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2024;103(3):222-232. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Pei G, Ou Q, Lao M, Wang L, Xu Y, Tan J, et al. APAP treatment acceptance rate and cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in patients with obstructive sleep apnea: a randomized controlled trial. Nat Sci Sleep. 2023;15:607-622. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Fridriksson B, Berndtson M, Hamnered H, Faeder E, Zou D, Hedner J, et al. Beneficial effects of early intervention telemedicine-based follow-up in sleep apnea: a randomized controlled multicenter trial. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2023;20(10):1499-1507. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Ballesta S, Chillarón JJ, Inglada Y, Climent E, Llauradó G, Pedro-Botet J, et al. Telehealth model versus in-person standard care for persons with type 1 diabetes treated with multiple daily injections: an open-label randomized controlled trial. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;14:1176765. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Ownsworth T, Chambers S, Jones S, Parker G, Aitken JF, Foote M, et al. Evaluation of the telehealth making sense of brain tumor psychological support intervention for people with primary brain tumor and their caregivers: a randomized controlled trial. Psychooncology. 2023;32(9):1385-1394. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- So H, Chow E, Cheng IT, Lau SL, Li TK, Szeto CC, et al. Telemedicine for follow-up of systemic lupus erythematosus during the 2019 coronavirus pandemic: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2023:1357633X231181714. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Lundgren KM, Langlo KAR, Salvesen Ø, Zanaboni P, Cittanti E, Mo R, et al. Feasibility of telerehabilitation for heart failure patients inaccessible for outpatient rehabilitation. ESC Heart Fail. 2023;10(4):2406-2417. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Babar M, Zhu D, Loloi J, Laudano M, Ohmann E, Abraham N, et al. Comparison of patient satisfaction and safety outcomes for postoperative telemedicine vs face-to-face visits in Urology: results of the Randomized Evaluation and Metrics Observing Telemedicine Efficacy (REMOTE) trial. Urol Pract. 2022;9(5):371-378. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Zanaboni P, Dinesen B, Hoaas H, Wootton R, Burge AT, Philp R, et al. Long-term telerehabilitation or unsupervised training at home for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2023;207(7):865-875. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Muschol J, Heinrich M, Heiss C, Hernandez AM, Knapp G, Repp H, et al. Economic and environmental impact of digital health app video consultations in follow-up care for patients in orthopedic and trauma surgery in Germany: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(11):e42839. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Fink T, Chen Q, Chong L, Hii MW, Knowles B. Telemedicine versus face-to-face follow up in general surgery: a randomized controlled trial. ANZ J Surg. 2022;92(10):2544-2550. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- DE Lima AP, Pereira DG, Nascimento IO, Martins TH, Oliveira AC, Nogueira TS, et al. Cardiac telerehabilitation in a middle-income country: analysis of adherence, effectiveness and cost through a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2022;58(4):598-605. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Treskes RW, van den Akker-van Marle ME, van Winden L, van Keulen N, van der Velde ET, Beeres S, et al. The box-eHealth in the outpatient clinic follow-up of patients with acute myocardial infarction: cost-utility analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(4):e30236. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Irgens I, Midelfart-Hoff J, Jelnes R, Alexander M, Stanghelle JK, Thoresen M, et al. Videoconferencing in pressure injury: randomized controlled telemedicine trial in patients with spinal cord injury. JMIR Form Res. 2022;6(4):e27692. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Bernard L, Valsecchi V, Mura T, Aouinti S, Padern G, Ferreira R, et al. Management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis by telemedicine: connected monitoring. a randomized controlled trial. Joint Bone Spine. 2022;89(5):105368. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Laurberg T, Schougaard LMV, Hjollund NHI, Lomborg KE, Hansen TK, Jensen AL. Randomized controlled study to evaluate the impact of flexible patient-controlled visits in people with type 1 diabetes: the DiabetesFlex trial. Diabet Med. 2022;39(5):e14791. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Frielitz FS, Eisemann N, Werner K, Hiort O, Katalinic A, Lange K, et al. Direct costs of healthcare for children with type 1 diabetes using a CGM system: a health economic analysis of the VIDIKI telemedicine study in a German setting. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2022;130(9):614-620. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Krzyzanowska MK, Julian JA, Gu CS, Powis M, Li Q, Enright K, et al. Remote, proactive, telephone based management of toxicity in outpatients during adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer: pragmatic, cluster randomised trial. BMJ. 2021;375:e066588. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Brouwers RWM, van der Poort EKJ, Kemps HMC, van den Akker-van Marle ME, Kraal JJ. Cost-effectiveness of cardiac telerehabilitation with relapse prevention for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease in the netherlands. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(12):e2136652. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Taguchi K, Numata N, Takanashi R, Takemura R, Yoshida T, Kutsuzawa K, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of videoconference-based integrated cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(11):e30690. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Yang L, Xu J, Kang C, Bai Q, Wang X, Du S, et al. Effects of mobile phone-based telemedicine management in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Med Sci. 2022;363(3):224-231. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Damery S, Jones J, O'Connell Francischetto E, Jolly K, Lilford R, Ferguson J. Remote consultations versus standard face-to-face appointments for liver transplant patients in routine hospital care: feasibility randomized controlled trial of myVideoClinic. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(9):e19232. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Contal O, Poncin W, Vaudan S, de Lys A, Takahashi H, Bochet S, et al. One-year adherence to continuous positive airway pressure with telemonitoring in sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:626361. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Shdaifat MBM, Khasawneh RA, Alefan Q. Clinical and economic impact of telemedicine in the management of pediatric asthma in Jordan: a pharmacist-led intervention. J Asthma. 2022;59(7):1452-1462. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Gomis-Pastor M, Mirabet Perez S, Roig Minguell E, Brossa Loidi V, Lopez Lopez L, Ros Abarca S, et al. Mobile health to improve adherence and patient experience in heart transplantation recipients: the mHeart trial. Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9(4):463. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Giusto LL, Derisavifard S, Zahner PM, Rueb JJ, Deyi L, Jiayi L, et al. Telemedicine follow-up is safe and efficacious for synthetic midurethral slings: a randomized, multi-institutional control trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(4):1007-1015. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Bonnaud G, Haennig A, Altwegg R, Caron B, Boivineau L, Zallot C, et al. Real-life pilot study on the impact of the telemedicine platform EasyMICI-MaMICI on quality of life and quality of care in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2021;56(5):530-536. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Batalik L, Dosbaba F, Hartman M, Konecny V, Batalikova K, Spinar J. Long-term exercise effects after cardiac telerehabilitation in patients with coronary artery disease: 1-year follow-up results of the randomized study. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2021;57(5):807-814. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Harkey K, Kaiser N, Zhao J, Hetherington T, Gutnik B, Matthews BD, et al. Postdischarge virtual visits for low-risk surgeries: a randomized noninferiority clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(3):221-228. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Flynn A, Preston E, Dennis S, Canning CG, Allen NE. Home-based exercise monitored with telehealth is feasible and acceptable compared to centre-based exercise in Parkinson's disease: a randomised pilot study. Clin Rehabil. 2021;35(5):728-739. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Chapoutot M, Peter-Derex L, Schoendorff B, Faivre T, Bastuji H, Putois B. Telehealth-delivered CBT-I programme enhanced by acceptance and commitment therapy for insomnia and hypnotic dependence: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Sleep Res. 2021;30(1):e13199. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Pers YM, Valsecchi V, Mura T, Aouinti S, Filippi N, Marouen S, et al. A randomized prospective open-label controlled trial comparing the performance of a connected monitoring interface versus physical routine monitoring in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021;60(4):1659-1668. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Arnedt JT, Conroy DA, Mooney A, Furgal A, Sen A, Eisenberg D. Telemedicine versus face-to-face delivery of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Sleep. 2021;44(1):zsaa136. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Watanabe E, Yamazaki F, Goto T, Asai T, Yamamoto T, Hirooka K, et al. Remote management of pacemaker patients with biennial in-clinic evaluation: continuous home monitoring in the Japanese at-home study: a randomized clinical trial. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2020;13(5):e007734. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Treskes RW, van Winden LAM, van Keulen N, van der Velde ET, Beeres SLMA, Atsma DE, et al. Effect of smartphone-enabled health monitoring devices vs regular follow-up on blood pressure control among patients after myocardial infarction: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(4):e202165. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Laver K, Liu E, Clemson L, Davies O, Gray L, Gitlin LN, et al. Does telehealth delivery of a dyadic dementia care program provide a noninferior alternative to face-to-face delivery of the same program? A randomized, controlled trial. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2020;28(6):673-682. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Kane LT, Thakar O, Jamgochian G, Lazarus MD, Abboud JA, Namdari S, et al. The role of telehealth as a platform for postoperative visits following rotator cuff repair: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2020;29(4):775-783. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Augestad KM, Sneve AM, Lindsetmo RO. Telemedicine in postoperative follow-up of STOMa PAtients: a randomized clinical trial (the STOMPA trial). Br J Surg. 2020;107(5):509-518. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Noel K, Messina C, Hou W, Schoenfeld E, Kelly G. Tele-transitions of care (TTOC): a 12-month, randomized controlled trial evaluating the use of telehealth to achieve triple aim objectives. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21(1):27. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Nelson M, Bourke M, Crossley K, Russell T. Telerehabilitation is non-inferior to usual care following total hip replacement - a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. Physiotherapy. 2020;107:19-27. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Lopez-Villegas A, Catalan-Matamoros D, Peiro S, Lappegard KT, Lopez-Liria R. Cost-utility analysis of telemonitoring versus conventional hospital-based follow-up of patients with pacemakers. The NORDLAND randomized clinical trial. PLoS One. 2020;15(1):e0226188. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Ruiz de Adana MS, Alhambra-Expósito MR, Muñoz-Garach A, Gonzalez-Molero I, Colomo N, Torres-Barea I, et al. Diabetes Group of SAEDYN (Andalusian Society of Endocrinology‚ Diabetes‚Nutrition). Randomized study to evaluate the impact of telemedicine care in patients with type 1 diabetes with multiple doses of insulin and suboptimal hba in Andalusia (Spain): PLATEDIAN study. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(2):337-342. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Guo P, Qiao W, Sun Y, Liu F, Wang C. Telemedicine technologies and tuberculosis management: a randomized controlled trial. Telemed J E Health. 2020;26(9):1150-1156. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Avila A, Claes J, Buys R, Azzawi M, Vanhees L, Cornelissen V. Home-based exercise with telemonitoring guidance in patients with coronary artery disease: does it improve long-term physical fitness? Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2020;27(4):367-377. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Murase K, Tanizawa K, Minami T, Matsumoto T, Tachikawa R, Takahashi N, et al. A randomized controlled trial of telemedicine for long-term sleep apnea continuous positive airway pressure management. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020;17(3):329-337. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Nelson M, Russell T, Crossley K, Bourke M, McPhail S. Cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation versus traditional care after total hip replacement: a trial-based economic evaluation. J Telemed Telecare. 2021;27(6):359-366. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Haghnia Y, Samad-Soltani T, Yousefi M, Sadr H, Rezaei-Hachesu P. Telepsychiatry- based care for the treatment follow-up of Iranian war veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Iran J Med Sci. 2019;44(4):291-298. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Bednarski BK, Nickerson TP, You YN, Messick CA, Speer B, Gottumukkala V, et al. Randomized clinical trial of accelerated enhanced recovery after minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery (RecoverMI trial). Br J Surg. 2019;106(10):1311-1318. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Yaron M, Sher B, Sorek D, Shomer M, Levek N, Schiller T, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing a telemedicine therapeutic intervention with routine care in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus treated by insulin pumps. Acta Diabetol. 2019;56(6):667-673. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Buvik A, Bergmo TS, Bugge E, Smaabrekke A, Wilsgaard T, Olsen JA. Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in remote orthopedic consultations: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(2):e11330. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Coker TR, Porras-Javier L, Zhang L, Soares N, Park C, Patel A, et al. A telehealth-enhanced referral process in pediatric primary care: a cluster randomized trial. Pediatrics. 2019;143(3):e20182738. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Xu L, Yi H, Pi M, Zhang C, Keenan BT, Glick HA, et al. Telemedicine management of obstructive sleep apnea disorder in China: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Sleep Breath. 2024;28(3):1173-1185. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Guaracha-Basáñez GA, Contreras-Yáñez I, Estrada González VA, Pacheco-Santiago LD, Valverde-Hernández SS, Pascual-Ramos V. Impact of a hybrid medical care model in the rheumatoid arthritis patient-reported outcomes: a non-inferiority crossover randomized study. J Telemed Telecare. 2024;30(6):931-940. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Ahmed MAEK, Zakaria MF, Elaziz AAEA, Fouad MM, Elbokl AM, Swelam MS. Assessment of the role of telemedicine in the outcome of multiple sclerosis patients. Egypt J Neurol Psychiatry Neurosurg. 2023;59(1):99. [CrossRef]
- Strassberger-Nerschbach N, Magyaros F, Maria W, Ehrentraut H, Ghamari S, Schenk A, et al. Quality comparison of remote anesthetic consultation versus on-site consultation in children with sedation for a magnetic resonance imaging examination-a randomized controlled trial. Paediatr Anaesth. 2023;33(8):647-656. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Mayet S, Gledhill A, McCaw I, Hashmani Z, Drozdova Z, Arshad S, et al. Telemedicine in addictions: feasibility randomised controlled trial. Heroin addiction and related clinical problems. 2023;25(3):27-36.
- Mooney SS, Gill GK, Readman E. Virtual clinics in gynaecology - can we shorten the wait? A randomised controlled trial implementing a novel care pathway for postmenopausal bleeding. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;62(5):732-739. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Whittington JR, Hughes DS, Rabie NZ, Ounpraseuth ST, Nembhard WN, Chauhan SP, et al. Detection of fetal anomalies by remotely directed and interpreted ultrasound (teleultrasound): a randomized noninferiority trial. Am J Perinatol. 2022;39(2):113-119. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Davidson L, Haynes SC, Favila-Meza A, Hoch JS, Tancredi DJ, Bares AD, et al. Parent experience and cost savings associated with a novel tele-physiatry program for children living in rural and underserved communities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022;103(1):8-13. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sydow H, Prescher S, Koehler F, Koehler K, Dorenkamp M, Spethmann S, et al. Non-invasive telemedical interventional management and its cost-effectiveness in patients with heart failure: economic results of the TIM-HF2 trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2022;24(Supplement 2):262.
- Macfarlane GJ, Beasley M, Scott N, Chong H, McNamee P, McBeth J, et al. Maintaining musculoskeletal health using a behavioural therapy approach: a population-based randomised controlled trial (the MAmMOTH Study). Ann Rheum Dis. 2021;80(7):903-911. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Raso MG, Arcuri F, Liperoti S, Mercurio L, Mauro A, Cusato F, et al. Telemonitoring of patients with chronic traumatic brain injury: a pilot study. Front Neurol. 2021;12:598777. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Tönnies J, Hartmann M, Wensing M, Szecsenyi J, Peters-Klimm F, Brinster R, et al. Mental health specialist video consultations versus treatment-as-usual for patients with depression or anxiety disorders in primary care: randomized controlled feasibility trial. JMIR Ment Health. 2021;8(3):e22569. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Mínguez Clemente P, Pascual-Carrasco M, Mata Hernández C, Malo de Molina R, Arvelo LA, Cadavid B, et al. Follow-up with telemedicine in early discharge for COPD exacerbations: randomized clinical trial (TELEMEDCOPD-Trial). COPD. 2021;18(1):62-69. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Duiverman ML, Vonk JM, Bladder G, van Melle JP, Nieuwenhuis J, Hazenberg A, et al. Home initiation of chronic non-invasive ventilation in COPD patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax. 2020;75(3):244-252. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- de Jong MJ, Boonen A, van der Meulen-de Jong AE, Romberg-Camps MJ, van Bodegraven AA, Mahmmod N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine-directed specialized vs standard care for patients with inflammatory bowel diseases in a randomized trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18(8):1744-1752. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Buvik A, Bugge E, Knutsen G, Småbrekke A, Wilsgaard T. Patient reported outcomes with remote orthopaedic consultations by telemedicine: a randomised controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2019;25(8):451-459. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Barker A, Cameron P, Flicker L, Arendts G, Brand C, Etherton-Beer C, et al. Evaluation of RESPOND, a patient-centred program to prevent falls in older people presenting to the emergency department with a fall: a randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2019;16(5):e1002807. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sekimoto S, Oyama G, Hatano T, Sasaki F, Nakamura R, Jo T, et al. A randomized crossover pilot study of telemedicine delivered via ipads in Parkinson's disease. Parkinsons Dis. 2019;2019:9403295. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Bohingamu Mudiyanselage S, Stevens J, Watts JJ, Toscano J, Kotowicz MA, Steinfort CL, et al. Personalised telehealth intervention for chronic disease management: a pilot randomised controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare. 2019;25(6):343-352. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Larsen DL, Attkisson CC, Hargreaves WA, Nguyen TD. Assessment of client/patient satisfaction: development of a general scale. Eval Program Plann. 1979;2(3):197-207. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Yip MP, Chang AM, Chan J, MacKenzie AE. Development of the telemedicine satisfaction questionnaire to evaluate patient satisfaction with telemedicine: a preliminary study. J Telemed Telecare. 2003;9(1):46-50. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Garratt AM, Bjaertnes ØA, Krogstad U, Gulbrandsen P. The outpatient experiences questionnaire (OPEQ): data quality, reliability, and validity in patients attending 52 Norwegian hospitals. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(6):433-437. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Aoki T. Significance and prospects of patient experience (PX) assessment [Article in Japanese]. Journal of the Society for Healthcare Quality and Safety. 2022;17(4):393-398. [FREE Full text]
- Morales Asencio JM, Bonill de Las Nieves C, Celdrán Mañas M, Morilla Herrera JC, Martín Santos FJ, Contreras Fernández E, et al. Design and validation of a home care satisfaction questionnaire: SATISFAD. Gac Sanit. 2007;21(2):106-113. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Stavem K, Augestad LA, Kristiansen IS, Rand K. General population norms for the EQ-5D-3 L in Norway: comparison of postal and web surveys. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):204. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095-1108. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Loge JH, Kaasa S, Hjermstad MJ, Kvien TK. Translation and performance of the Norwegian SF-36 health survey in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. I. Data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability, and construct validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1069-1076. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier JE, et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International quality of life assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1171-1178. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Green KC, Armstrong JS, Graefe A. Methods to elicit forecasts from groups: delphi and prediction markets compared. SSRN Journal. 2008;8:17-20. [CrossRef]
- Churruca K, Pomare C, Ellis LA, Long JC, Henderson SB, Murphy LED, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): a review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expect. 2021;24(4):1015-1024. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Friedel AL, Siegel S, Kirstein CF, Gerigk M, Bingel U, Diehl A, et al. Measuring patient experience and patient satisfaction-how are we doing it and why does it matter? A comparison of European and U.S. American approaches. Healthcare (Basel). 2023;11(6):797. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Bleich SN, Ozaltin E, Murray CKL. How does satisfaction with the health-care system relate to patient experience? Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87(4):271-278. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Oben P. Understanding the patient experience: a conceptual framework. J Patient Exp. 2020;7(6):906-910. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Meltzer MI, Shapiro CN, Mast EE, Arcari C. The economics of vaccinating restaurant workers against hepatitis A. Vaccine. 2001;19(15-16):2138-2145. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sanders GD, Maciejewski ML, Basu A. Overview of cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA. 2019;321(14):1400-1401. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Cost-effectiveness analysis. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. URL: https://www.herc.research.va.gov/include/page.asp?id=cost-effectiveness-analysis [accessed 2024-10-01]
- Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1989;5(4):559-575. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Greenhouse gas protocol. World Resources Institute. URL: https://www.wri.org/initiatives/greenhouse-gas-protocol [accessed 2024-11-27]
- Rodríguez-Jiménez L, Romero-Martín M, Spruell T, Steley Z, Gómez-Salgado J. The carbon footprint of healthcare settings: a systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2023;79(8):2830-2844. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Williams JTW, Bell KJL, Morton RL, Dieng M. Methods to include environmental impacts in health economic evaluations and health technology assessments: a scoping review. Value Health. 2024;27(6):794-804. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
Abbreviations
| HbA1c: hemoglobin A1c |
| IQR: interquartile range |
| PRISMA-ScR: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews |
| PRO: patient-reported outcome |
| QALY: quality-adjusted life year |
| QoL: quality of life |
| RCT: randomized control trial |
| SF-12: Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 12-Item Health Survey |
| SF-36: Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item Health Survey |
Edited by N Cahill; submitted 25.10.24; peer-reviewed by M Boarini, JCH Fernandes, A Adebisi; comments to author 18.11.24; revised version received 12.12.24; accepted 23.12.24; published 31.01.25.
Copyright©Yuka Sugawara, Yosuke Hirakawa, Masao Iwagami, Ryota Inokuchi, Rie Wakimizu, Masaomi Nangaku. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 31.01.2025.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.